As IJ lawyer Scott Bullock put it, the Fort Trumbull situation was an “ideal public interest case” for the Institute. Legally, the case was a good one because the city did not claim that the property in question was “blighted” or otherwise causing harm, thereby making it harder to prove that condemnation would genuinely benefit the public. The case also featured sympathetic plaintiffs who were determined to fight for their rights. That made it likely that it would play well in the court of public opinion, and that it would not be settled before it could lead to a precedent-setting decision. IJ hoped to achieve a ruling holding that takings that transfer property from one private individual to another for “economic development” do not serve a genuine “public use” and are therefore unconstitutional. –“The story behind Kelo v. City of New London,”
Ilia Somin
Which ideas supported Bullock’s argument on behalf of the residents? Check all that apply.
Developing the land would not benefit New London.
The property was not actually in poor condition.
Condemning the property would not benefit the public.
The city would be better served by a different development plan.
The residents would be seen as sympathetic by the public.